Abstract

This article reviews the literature on ‘new wars’. It argues that ‘new wars’ should be understood not as an empirical category but rather as a way of elucidating the logic of contemporary war that can offer both a research strategy and a guide to policy. It addresses four components of the debate: whether new wars are ‘new’; whether new wars are war or crime; whether the data supports the claims about new wars; and whether new wars are ‘post-Clausewitzean’. It argues that the obsession with the ‘newness’ of wars misses the point about the logic of new wars; that there is a blurring of war and crime but it is important to address the political elements of new wars; that, although the data should be used with caution, it does seem to offer support for some elements of the new war thesis; and that the argument is indeed post-Clausewitzean because new wars are not ‘contests of wills’ but more similar to a mutual enterprise. It concludes that the debate has greatly enriched the overall argument.